onepiecefandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Fight Articles
Alright, this is something that's been stewing around in my head for several months now. I've noticed that we describe battles on chapter, episode, and character pages, but they don't have dedicated pages of their own, which is why I'm proposing we make some. I understand that more than a few clashes in the series either aren't long enough to qualify as proper battles or involve too many shifting opponents to properly qualify who's mainly fighting who, but I think this would be beneficial because 1. making pages exclusively for detailing battles would allow for increased summarization on other pages referring to those battles, and 2. if a battle is, say, spread out over multiple chapters (such as Frank vs. Senor Pink) users can just read a summary that has all the information in one area rather than poring over multiple chapters or paragraphs in a history section to find what they want. On top of that, the infobox can contain all the techniques used in the fight, which is helpful since we usually only list the first usage of a technique on Devil Fruit and other such pages. I've created a proof of concept for Luffy vs. Blueno here so you can get an idea for how it might be laid out, though I should note that if this does go through, we'll need to create a new template specifically for fight articles: I managed to throw one together there, but I'm certain someone with actual HTML experience could make a much better-looking one. Leave your thoughts, change propositions, votes of support, votes of denial, and wild accusations of me trying to turn this wiki into Bleach wiki below.--Xilinoc (talk) 02:09, June 26, 2015 (UTC) Discussion This could work, although it would be difficult to find and list every technique used. One Piece has a lot more named techniques than Bleach and some of the longer fights (everyone vs. Oars) have a huge amount that were used throughout the battle. On a side note, OMG XIL'S TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WIKI AND MAKE IT THE BLEACH WIKI HE MUST BE BANNEDAFDADFTRWGH. 02:41, June 26, 2015 (UTC) True, but generally speaking they at least say the name every time they use it. It didn't take me too long to find all the techniques used in Luffy vs. Blueno. If it's an unusual amount, though, I'd be all for only listing the techniques that make their debut in that fight.--Xilinoc (talk) 02:55, June 26, 2015 (UTC) I don't think we need it because chapter and character pages can cover that. Plus some fights are not even fights and can be tricky to cover it up Joekido (talk) 03:20, June 26, 2015 (UTC) I agree with Joe. Chapter and character articles have it covered. 04:02, June 26, 2015 (UTC) Fight articles aren't really encyclopedic. Especially when the content can already be covered in other articles. SeaTerror (talk) 04:07, June 26, 2015 (UTC) I have to disagree with that because often times character and arc histories are so bloated and overlong that it can often take a while to find a specific battle. Plus, they often suffer from being overgeneralized (as an attempt to make it slightly less bloated) or from a single character's point of view. And chapter articles don't always work because you don't remember what chapters the fight took place in (especially with older fights). I remember I researched Luffy and Crocodile's battle for a blog, and it took me forever to find what chapters it took place in. Plus, the summaries of earlier chapters are often very short/nonexistent, making them a very shaky resource. While it will be a bit of work deciding what constitutes a "fight," the benefits would exceed it as we would have an easier resource to go to when looking up battles. Fights are an integral part of One Piece, and they should not just be mashed into summaries which are sometimes too short and vague and other times too bloated and overlong. 04:25, June 26, 2015 (UTC) At the same time, I feel doing it would over-emphasize the fighting aspect. Fights are a big part of One Piece, but they don't take precedent in importance, while they do in popularity, over other events. We've had some fight pages in the past, but got rid of them for one reason or another, mainly because there were too many to make and keep track of, and this is before the Straw Hats even went to the New World. 04:35, June 26, 2015 (UTC) If we maintain a consistent approach and activity level, however, it should turn out fine. If we do go forward with this, I agree with Vid that specific techniques shouldn't be in the infobox, as it could make it bloated with longer fights. Just include the basic fighting styles and their subsections, such as Gomu Gomu no Mi and the Gears. Also Xil, you mentioned the possible naming system of multiple fights between the same characters on Skype. It went like this: *Battle One: X vs. X *Battle Two: X vs. X, Rematch *Battle Three: X vs. X, Final Battle I think this naming system is a bit too informal and vague for new readers, and should be improved on. Here is my idea: If two characters battle multiple times in a single arc, like Luffy and Crocodile, it should be consolidated into a single page, since the different battles are often just continuations and often involve the same motives. However, if characters battle twice in different arcs, like Luffy and Bellamy, then there should be multiple pages, with the distinction between each being the place it was fought on. For example, it could be Monkey D. Luffy vs. Bellamy (Jaya) and Monkey D. Luffy vs. Bellamy (Dressrosa). 05:01, June 26, 2015 (UTC) Both the "no techniques in infobox" and the revised naming system sound fine to me.--Xilinoc (talk) 05:11, June 26, 2015 (UTC) Against this, for the reasons stated by DP, ST and Joe. Noteworthy wars/events like the Battle of Marineford that has a name and everything, should have a page, of course. But random fights, no. 12:29, June 26, 2015 (UTC) Against. Big events are covered already, and small fights don't matter. 12:31, June 26, 2015 (UTC) Considering we have pages for Operations and other events, I'm pretty sure fights also fit into "events." There are a lot of noteworthy battles that only get crammed into histories, like Luffy vs. Doflamingo for example. As for what battles would be major enough to get an article, I went and made a list on my test wiki: http://kaido.wikia.com/wiki/Ffftjjkrrtkr Each battle on there is important to the story arcs they are featured in, and larger-scale conflicts are not included because the fights often vary and most already have pages. If we were to keep track of everything through a system such as this list, we would be able to make articles about important fights smoothly and without much hassle. Then, if someone considered a nonincluded fight worthy of a page, they could take it up on that page before it would be decided if it could be made or not. 19:01, June 26, 2015 (UTC) Didn't we already discuss this somewhere? 17:36, June 27, 2015 (UTC) I asked you about it once, and you said you were against it, buuuuut for the sake of getting more opinions on the matter I made a forum.--Xilinoc (talk) 20:52, June 27, 2015 (UTC) Oh, ok. Just making sure it wasn't discussed in another forum or something... Anyways, I still don't like the idea, as like DP said, it kind of takes the focus away from the more important aspects of OP. Plus, I really don't think articles every punch and line of dialogue for a fight scene are really neccesary, or useful to the reader. At a certain point, it becomes better just to read or watch the source material rather than read a wiki. 22:25, June 28, 2015 (UTC) I'm against having fight articles, and I'd explain why, but others have already said that the noteworthy/important fights already have their articles (i.e. Battle of Marineford and others), and as Kage said, no to random fights. 20:57, June 29, 2015 (UTC) Yeah. I think it would be nice to include and I wish we had more contained articles like this, but this information belongs on the pages their already on. I'm going to have to give it the ole Ryu disapproval. 02:36, July 4, 2015 (UTC) I echo JSD's sentiments. No one wants to peruse a blow by blow synopsis for something they could easily just reread or rewatch on their own time. Plus, regulating it would be a nightmare. Imagine an article written with ESPN levels of analysis for every little scuffle, no matter how inconsequential or non-canon. No thank you.--The Will of Deez (talk) 02:49, July 4, 2015 (UTC) Clear majority. 02:57, July 4, 2015 (UTC)